reason for deferment

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
21

<p>Virtually every SCEA and ED college has a much much higher early admit rate than its regular admit rate. Is everyone facing a better applicant pool in December than in March?</p>

<p>Here is a bit from the NYT on early admission</p>

<p>"Harvard Ends Early Admission</p>

<p>By ALAN FINDER and KAREN W. ARENSON
Published: September 12, 2006
Harvard University, breaking with a major trend in college admissions, says it will eliminate its early admissions program next year, with university officials arguing that such programs put low-income and minority applicants at a distinct disadvantage in the competition to get into selective universities......
Mr. Bok said students who were more affluent and sophisticated were the ones most likely to apply for early admission. More than a third of Harvard’s students are accepted through early admission."</p>

<p>So, EA helps the affluent because they are more likely to use it.</p>

<p>See also "The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite (Hardcover)
by Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, Richard Zeckhauser"</p>

<p>Of course you are right, that is what the college is saying but the college is still willing to make some sacrifice and take a slightly weaker student EA. This keeps the EA acceptance rate high so that the best students apply next year (if you don't give EAs preferrential treatment they go elsewhere as Yale found out). EAs also help colleges because it keeps yields high. people signal that they are likely to attend even if they are not forced to attend.</p>

22

<p>


</p>

<p>Feeling the party line, are we? Firstly, your litle aside about privilege here is irrelevant to the statement you make regarding the truth of Northstarmom's statement. I'd like to see the studies you refer to that back up your assertion regarding the relative chances on a per student basic of EA vs. RD. Obviously the acceptance rates differ, but this is almost surely due to different strengths of applicant pools (whether you believe it or not, it would seem obvious to me that stronger applicants would have incentive to apply early, and this has been borne out by personal observation).</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>No, EA helps affluent people if there is an absolute advantage inherent to the process, independent of any particular applicant's profile, that applies only to EA and not to RD. I don't believe this to be the case, and neither do the very universities who are getting rid of these rounds: they still say that the two rounds are at least equitable. So on what basis do you make that statement?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Please back up the first assertion. There is no advantage in an elite school such as HYPSMC taking weaker students early - they have so many to choose from, they can get who they like. This also depends on what you define as "weaker" - a weaker applicant may in fact have a particular trait that the school is looking for, and thus get in. As for this supposed effect on the next year's students: I don't buy it. Almost every student I know who applied early was applying to what was clearly their first choice. It wasn't a "where, statistically, am I most likely to get in?" type of deal at all. I think those kind of applicants are actually a rarer breed, because most smart students realize that aggregate statistics and personal chances are two almost completely different things (this of course is only true when you're comparing similar colleges; comparing Harvard to Liberty University, for example, will yield aggregate differences that do in fact expose inherent differences in personal chances).</p>

<p>But I'm not going to argue that EA keeps yield high. What I am going to question is why that is relevant. Almost all of those admitted early are those for whom the school is a first choice. Furthermore, many of these applicants are recruited athletes. It follows naturally that EA yield should be higher - so what's your point?</p>

<p><em>as a note</em></p>

<p>I actually had long discussions regarding this issue with both Harvard and Princeton admissions officials (a vice dean at Princeton). Neither were able to offer substantive concrete reasons why the objections I raised in this post (among others) are not valid. It is my personal opinion that both schools are suffering some logical issues in this debate (a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious argument), but for them the dropping of EA/ED has no significant downsides (since they can still issue likely letters), and good upsides in terms of images of diversity, among other things. Whether it makes any substantive positive changes remains to be seen, but I personally feel that the policy change will not - or it will make changes that do not reflect the inherent system flaws that people suppose they do.</p>

23

<p>Hmm. I already gave a reference. If you look at the book i cited you will see the numbers. I also gave you a quote from the President of Harvard University saying EA is unfair because for the most part affluent people apply early and take advantage of the preferential treatment.</p>

<p>"But I'm not going to argue that EA keeps yield high. What I am going to question is why that is relevant. Almost all of those admitted early are those for whom the school is a first choice. Furthermore, many of these applicants are recruited athletes. It follows naturally that EA yield should be higher - so what's your point?"</p>

<p>Therefore, it helps a school keep its yield number high by admitting a relatively higher fraction of EAs. This is exactly my point.</p>

<p>So, you are saying a rather extensive study done by two harvard professors, a vice dean at Princeton, the president of harvard are all "suffering from logical issues" and are therefore coming to the wrong conclusion about the strategic use of EA by colleges. I dunno.</p>

<p>If an adcom member or dean of admission says "we never admit early any student that we wouldn't admit RD" you have reason to be sceptical. Afterall, it is difficult for them to come outright and say "yes we give preferential treatment to EAs" It is always difficult for the ppl to admit any type of preferential treatment (Look at how Harvard underplays the treatment of legacies on its webpage "sons and daughters of alumni get a second look") But when two university presidents comeout and say "EA/ED is unfair because the affluent do a much better job of taking advantage of the higher admit rates and therefore we are canceling it, you have to take them a little seriously.</p>

<p>And no there isnt an infinite supply of infinitely qualified candidates. If there were, Harvard wouldn't have to fill a quarter of its incoming class with ppl that have 1400/1600 or less.</p>

24

<p>"And no there isnt an infinite supply of infinitely qualified candidates. If there were, Harvard wouldn't have to fill a quarter of its incoming class with ppl that have 1400/1600 or less."</p>

<p>Hahahahahaha... do you think that if Harvard wanted to, it couldn't fill up its class with people that scored above a 1550? Unlike a good number of CCers, Harvard knows that a student with a higher SAT score IS NOT ALWAYS A BETTER STUDENT! They're not forced to take students with lower SAT scores- they take them because they're better qualified, for one reason or another.</p>

<p>Also, no one ever said there was an "infinite" supply of "infinitely qualified" candidates, or anything close to that- they said that the vast majority of Harvard applicants are qualified enough to handle the academics.</p>

25

<p>Bear in mind that a lot of development cases, recruited athletes, and legacies apply early. Many of these applicants including development cases, and recruited athletes get to bypass the admission process that the rest of the applicants participate in. Very connected development cases do not usually have their applications read by a regional admission officer who rallies for them at the admission committee. Rather, the development office discusses that individual with the Dean of Admissions and often that decision could be decided upon before the committee already meets. In addition athletes contact college coaches directly and the coaches advocate directly to the Dean of Admissions which athletes they want. Although they provide a list to the Dean of Admissions, it is usually not the regional admission officer who advocates for these players and usually the athletes are decided upon before the committee. As for under represented minorities, most schools have a high ranking admission officer responsible for additionally advocating for these students so they might get an additional review.
If you applied from a state like New York where there were hundreds of applicants, and 20% or so were accepted, then it probably did not impact you as much if some in these categories got the edge, since many without the edge got accepted. If however you live in a state where there were only about 50 applicants or so, these categories could very well have affected your early decision. This is because if there were 50 applicants and only 10 taken from that state, and a few were development cases (ie usually legacies who given a substantial amount of money to the school, (usually over six figures) and very connected to that school, or even non legacies who made a similar contribution, and a few were recruited athletes, a few brought diversity to the school ect, there just were not many spots left no matter how much a regional admission officer advocated for you. This does seem unfair especially if some of those accepted have qualifications that would not have been competitive but for the connection ect. However, in the regular admissions pool, with most of the development cases, recruite athletes ect out of the pool, I do believe that top candidates will have a chance for admission.</p>

26

<p>"Hahahahahaha... do you think that if Harvard wanted to, it couldn't fill up its class with people that scored above a 1550? Unlike a good number of CCers, Harvard knows that a student with a higher SAT score IS NOT ALWAYS A BETTER STUDENT! They're not forced to take students with lower SAT scores- they take them because they're better qualified, for one reason or another.</p>

<p>Also, no one ever said there was an "infinite" supply of "infinitely qualified" candidates, or anything close to that- they said that the vast majority of Harvard applicants are qualified enough to handle the academics."</p>

<p>I was responding to "'There is no advantage in an elite school such as HYPSMC taking weaker students early - they have so many to choose from, they can get who they like."</p>

<p>This is not true. I gave sat scorees only as an example of something colleges may care about. If Harvard filled the class with 1550s then presumably those 1550s would be less desirable (for Harvard) than the current class along some other dimension. We seem to be agreeing on this.</p>

<p>Colleges benefit from favoring (slightly) EA/EDs and with a few notable exceptions (MIT, caltech) they all do. Princeton and Columbia favor early applicants a lot. Harvard and Yale less so.</p>

27

<p>"Harvard knows that a student with a higher SAT score IS NOT ALWAYS A BETTER STUDENT! They're not forced to take students with lower SAT scores- they take them because they're better qualified, for one reason or another."</p>

<p>The first sentence is true even if we define "better student" narrowly to mean a student who will do better in coursework. The second sentence is in some cases only true if we define "better student" more broadly to include other measures of success. However, we don't really know what that measure is, which accounts for some of the frustration many people feel about the process. </p>

<p>And given that most Harvard classes give a C, or even a B-, for just showing up, equating "the ablity to graduate" with "qualfied for Harvard" is setting the bar for "qualified for Harvard" awfully low. Personally, I wish the adcom held all applicants to a higher academic standard before looking at factors like EC's.</p>

28

<p>"Northstarmom,</p>

<p>There are a number of studies that demonstrate that for any given student chances at EA are better than at RD. This fact together with the observation that lower income applicants are less likely to apply early led some to conclude that EA is unfair for underpriviledged applicants and so Harvard and Princeton gave up on EA. Therefore, the statement Harvard would not let anyone in EA unless it was certain that the person would get in RD is now beyond disingenuous, it is undeniably wrong.</p>

<p>The statistic "90% of the Harvard applicants qualify for Harvard based on stats" is also meaningless since it is not clear what it means to qualify for Harvard.</p>

<p>The point of your post seems to be to tell cc77cc77cc to move on and apply to other colleges. That's unobjectionable but a preamble reaffirming Harvard and the infallibility of its admissions process seems unnecessary."</p>

<p>My, this is rude...and it would seem inaccurate. </p>

<p>Please cite your studies and provide links if possible. I would certainly like to review their conclusions, assumptions and statistical analysis. I seriously doubt any of them "demonstrate that for any given student chances at EA are better than at RD", nor is it likely any of them claim it - certainly none which would undergo scholarly review. </p>

<p>What any study, book, anecdote, article I've read indicates is that AS A GROUP the chances are better for the EA pool than the RD pool. As to WHY that is, all I have seen is conjecture and supposition - some somewhat sensible, but mostly rubbish - and a lot of meant to sell books to people looking for the "secret" to getting into Harvard.</p>

<p>As far as "any given student" goes, ...</p>

<p>... certainly one would figure the uber legacies, recruited athletes, developmental cases, and anyone else with a similarly "guaranteed" admission are going to do just as well in RD as EA. 100% equals 100%, yes? ..... so their chances would be the same - no advantage (from EA)</p>

<p>... for those who get deferred EA and then rejected RD, 0% equals 0% ... so no advantage EA for them either </p>

<p>... for those who get rejected EA, they couldn't have done any worse RD so again there is no EA advantage</p>

<p>... and lastly for those who are deferred EA and admitted RD, their RD chance was clearly better than their EA chance</p>

<p>So we are well over 3000 "exceptions" to your "for any given student" claim.</p>

<p>Maybe that isn't really what you meant. Maybe what you were trying to say was that the 500?, 700?, (whatever number) non "guaranteed" EA admits had an advantage over their RD peers. </p>

<p>Okay, lets accept your premise. </p>

<p>Lets also assume that in both EA and RD, the candidates are ranked with at least some rationality and that acceptances aren't simply darts thrown at a board. This follows from your cite "but the college is still willing to make some sacrifice and take a slightly weaker student EA". "Stronger" and "weaker" are irrelevant in terms of a dart board.</p>

<p>You further dispute the notion that the EA pool is stronger than the RD. OK, lets assume they are equal.</p>

<p>Finally, lets assume only 500 hundred of the early admits were "non guaranteed" and for the sake of simplicity that there will be 17,500 new RD applications.</p>

<p>Thus 2500 of the new applications should rank on a par with the EA admits (which include some "slightly weaker" students). But there are only 1000
spots left, so some 1500 RD applicants (any one of which had he or she traded spaces with and early admit would have gotten in) are at a disadvantage because they did not apply EA, right?</p>

<p>Except.....if this were all true....none of the EA deferred applicants (who rate somewhere below the "slightly weaker" EA admits) would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting in RD. And this is not the case. RD admittance rates for those deferred EA appear to be roughly comparable to the overall rate for new RD applicants.</p>

<p>Therefore, it would appear that the RD pool is not as strong as the "nonguaranteed" EA pool. Rather, it is much more plausible that the quality of the RD pool is comparable to the deferred EA pool.</p>

<p>The alternative is that Harvard is throwing darts.</p>

29

<p>I agree (with Aedar) 100%. Unfortunately, putting more emphasis on academics seems to lead to a distribtution of enter class attributes that Harvard is not very keen on. too many science major, too many of one ethnic group too few of another. too few alumni that are likely to make major financial contributions etc. So ec's help control the disribution of attributes in the entering class. One year you find out that there are too many Xs and a lot of Xs do Y as an ec, next year Y is declared a boring ec. Ambiguous hard to measure things like "passion" become key criteria for admission. Passion is great because if you want to admit A over B you can simply state that A has more passion, how is anyone going to prove otherwise?</p>

30

<p>Ok, this is my last attempt OdysseyTigger:</p>

<p>Unlike you, I did cite a study but there are others. As I noted two university presidents have announced that early admission gives an unfair advantage to the affluent because the less affluent have a harder time applying early (and have therefore cancelled EA/ED). If EA did not give an advantage to the applicant this statement would not make sense.</p>

<p>The study I cite controls for the difference in distribution in the EA and RD pools. I never made the claim that the two pools were identical; such a claim is unnecessary for my argument.</p>

<p>Even if an EA applicant is accepted in the RD round, the college knows that he/she is an EA applicant, so many (but not all) of the advantages of favoring EA applicants still exits even when evaluating those applicants in the RD round. So, no, the fact that 100 or so deferred EA applicants get into Harvard in the RD round doesn't disprove my point.</p>

<p>I never suggested that Harvard is throwing darts. That is not an alternative to anything.</p>

31

<p>1) a)No, you cited a NYT article and a mass market how-to book on getting into an elite college</p>

<p>1) b) ED and EA are different animals - Princeton and ED are irrelevant to this discussion - (the financial argument being that ED's can't shop FA offers). Further, if you want to take official pronoucements as sacred, then why did you start up here at all. Harvard's official position on EA admits is that they only admit those they would be certain to admit in the spring. You can't start off your argument with you can't believe what Harvard says and then try to bolster your position with "what Harvard says". I have not accepted what Harvard says, instead I have tested it.</p>

<p>2) a) I still can't find your cite - I actually want to read the "study". That's why I also asked for a link if available. I would be very interested in how they claim to have used controls. I am also certain that any conclusions would be couched in terms of statistical significance. Language claiming to demonstrate conclusively "that for any given student chances at EA are better than at RD" simply would not be used. </p>

<p>2) b) You did not claim that the two pools were identical, you claimed that it was untrue that the early pool was stronger. What's left is either they are equal or the RD pool is stronger. I chose the option more advantageous to your "argument" which frankly collapses of its own weight.</p>

<p>3) Do you actually bother to examine what you say means? "that for any given student chances at EA are better than at RD". Trying to define away your statistical problems isn't going to work. With 2500 better qualified applicants to choose from in RD Harvard is still going to fill some 20% of the remaining 1000 spots in the class with inferior candidates just because they previously applied ED? Please oh please give me your data on this one. </p>

<p>4) Darts is the only way your argument holds water. This is the basically your position. Admission decisions are determined by two random lotteries with half the class filled EA and half filled RD. Since the RD lottery has more than 4 times as many players as the EA lottery (and most of the EA losers get to play again for free in RD lottery) the savvy few "in the know" who apply EA have gamed the game and dramatical increased their chances.</p>

<p>...and that just isn't so.</p>

32

<p>The book in which it was discussed that there is an early adviantage to applying early at HYP is outdated. The book is based on admission statistics that go back even several years from when the book was written. (I believe the statistics are based on 1998-2002) It is a different admissions evironment today that it was even five years ago. Number one there are more college entrance age students today than at any other time in US History. In addition the common application gaining substantial usage has resulted in thousands of more applications with schools like Harvard getting over 20,000 applications in the regular decision pool. Because of this, there is no clear advantage to applying early. There is a slight advantage however. Let me explain. The book really describes situations like Cornell which has a much lower yield than HYP as many top students do not pick it as their first choice and select HYP over it. Because they care about yield so much and are not certain who will accept them regular decision, they tend to take not only a large number early, but applicants who might be a little weaker than regular decision applicants. In contast a school like Harvard finds itself in a situation where the early admission pool is unbelievbly strong. Almost all the student who apply have the statistics that make them candidates. There is really no such thing as a student reaching themselves in. Weaker applicants do not get in period. If you were to factor out all the legacies, recruited athletes and development cases who apply early and even high scoring minorities who will have an advantage, the reality is that the acceptance rate is not that much different from regular decision applicants. The advantage however to applying to school like Harvard is that Harvard will fill almost half of its class from early applicants either from those who apply early or those who are deferred and ultimately accepted. It is however just a slight advantage.
The reality is that Harvard does not accept anyone in the early round that they would not have taken in the regular decision round. The early round is also comprised of some the strongest applicants in the country, who all gave up their chance to apply early somewhere else. The regular decision pool may be comprised of over 20,000 applicants, but half of them are probably not really qualified and figure that for the common application fee they might as well take a shot. Of the 10,000 that remain all will have the statistics and academic record that makes them qualified. Now all the other factors of the application will come into play</p>

33

<p>1a) What evidence did you cite? Here is a link for the book I mentioned, the "early admission game"
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674010558%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674010558&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>what use is it for me to provide evidence if you can simply dismiss it by saying its a NYT article or a mass market book?</p>

<p>Two of its three authors are harvard professors (avery and Zeckhauser)</p>

<p>1b) My argument is not based on what Harvard says. I only pointed out that what adcom officers typically say contradicts what the presidents of harvard and princeton have recently announced. the book i cite offers many other examples of colleges making both kinds of announements, sometimes claiming that there is no advantage to EA sometimes stating that there is.</p>

<p>2a) see the link above. Honestly, the fact that EAs are treated better than regular admits is really not much of a secret anymore. In a google hour you should be able to find plenty of additional cites if you want to.</p>

<p>2b) I don't think i claimed that. If i did, it was a mistake, sorry. the study i mentioned controls for the difference in pools with respect many observables. Again, you can always reject any study buy claiming that there are other characteristics only observable to adcoms according to which EA pools better by enough of a margin to justify the much higher acceptance rate.</p>

<p>3) you cannot win an argument by exaggerating my statements. if you think it through, you will see that it helps to favor ea applicants (a little). One way it helps is by attracting more EA applicants the next year and giving the college the first crack at top notch candidates. This only works if you favor EAs a little not if you "fill some 20% of the class with inferior candidates."</p>

<p>4) I did not saying anything that could be interpreted to mean that Harvard has to fill equal proportion of its class EA and RD. What does this have to do with darts anyway? </p>

<p>"---and that just isn't so." Why? Because you have evidence or an argument or because you like to believe it isn't so? Again, I could send you to the NYT article where the president of harvard says it is so and announces that this is why Harvard is ending early admission. But you would dismiss that because it is a NYT article. I could send you to a number of bloggers (Yglesias for example) who praise Harvard for ending this practice which disadvantaged the less savvy less well-off applicants but you would dismiss that too. I have given you an extensive study by two Harvard professors showing that EAs are favored and the president of harvard university saying that EAs are favored and ending EAs because of it. How much more evidence do you need?</p>

34

<p>
[QUOTE]
My argument is not based on what Harvard says. I only pointed out that what adcom officers typically say contradicts what the presidents of harvard and princeton have recently announced. the book i cite offers many other examples of colleges making both kinds of announements, sometimes claiming that there is no advantage to EA sometimes stating that there is.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>It isn't contradictory. EA does "advantage the advantaged." It's putting the same issue in a different light, but essentially is the same. Kids who apply EA are stronger candidates. In informal chats with many admissions officers, EA kids on average have higher grades, higher test scores and better extra-curricular credentials than the RD kids. Of course, it also helps that many EA kids who apply are 1) legacies, 2) development cases, 3) athletes or some combination thereof. More of an advantage there!</p>

<p>If an EA kid gets deferred, he/she still has a better or an equal chance with a kid who just applies RD. Therefore, you can see that if a student applies EA and gets deferred, the student still has the same chance statistically as any other kid who applies RD. </p>

<p>The deferred letter says this as well - "students who are deferred are accepted at close to or equal rate as RD applicants." In essence, there is no reason not to apply early, since in the end, even if you were deferred, you would still have the same shot as anyone else applying RD. </p>

<p>However, only the savviest college counselors would know this fact. The average HS counselor, lo and behold, does not know about this (Any college counselor push only state schools to make his/her life easier? I know mine did) and the inherent advantage early admissions programs provide.</p>

<p>Furthermore, to go back to the "If you really wanted to go to Harvard, you would know the difference between SCEA/EA/ED/EDII" argument, I find that to be only representative of members on CC. There are so many misconceptions about Harvard that talented and smart kids do not even fathom it a choice for them. The vast majority of us on CC have attended schools where we had good college counselors, or at least had a foundation to start from. </p>

<p>One of my very good friends is from rural New Mexico and he was at the top of his class, did a lot of state-wide work, etc. but never heard or even thought about Harvard until someone called him and sent him a letter. This is, unfortunately, endemic of many parts of the nation. New York City and Los Angeles are not representative of the entire nation.</p>

<p>With about 900 spots in the Class of 2011 accounted for already, there are only about 1,100 offers of admission left (historically speaking). Approximately 22,000 will be vying for one of those offers. However, the deferred EA kids still have a second shot at one of the remaining 1,100 offers of admission whereas it would be the first shot for a RD kid.</p>

35

<p>kjayz - I have some questions for you. How does it work when someone is deferred in terms of the admission committee? Are they deliberated all over again? Does the regional admission offfice give equal attention to the regular and deferred applicants? For HYP in my state, a small number were taken early and the ones I knew were pretty connected ie development cases, athletes ect even though their stats were lower and they had no real leadership, extra curriculars ect. To me it seemed like there were not many spots therefore avaialble for those not in those categories. I imagine that the regional admission officers did not even need to rally for these appicants as many were decided before deliberations and much of the available spots were taken with this group. I am therefore hoping that those who are deferred but are very strong but also stand out with unique passions and talents and great accomplishments that would be an asset to the school would have a good chance in the regular decision round. Do you think that there were some applicatis who were deferred who might have a special notation on their applicaiton that they were a close call, or is it that all deferred applicants are thrown back in and they start all over?</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
do you think that if Harvard wanted to, it couldn't fill up its class with people that scored above a 1550?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These are the numbers, for one year's high school seniors, of top SAT I scorers. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCompositeCR_M_W.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanksCompositeCR_M_W.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Harvard makes about 2,000 offers of admission--only to people who actually applied to Harvard--to get about 1600 new freshmen each year. How far down the SAT I rankings Harvard "must" go each year depends on how many of the top SAT I scorers desire to apply to Harvard--not all do. </p>

<p>But, yes, surely every year Harvard admits students with lower SAT I scores than other students it doesn't admit (which is true of all other colleges on the planet, too) because the admissions committee looks at other issues besides test scores in putting together the group of students to whom offers of admission are made.</p>

37

<p>maybeinapril</p>

<p>I'm sorry but an article in the New York Times does not constitute a research study - neither does a book (even if written by two Harvard professors) meant to generate its profits through sales to people desperate to get themselves - or their kids - into an elite school. It doesn't work that way.</p>

<p>Nor is it "evidence". Heresay maybe, but not evidence.</p>

<p>Evidence is the admit rate of the deferred EAs in the RD round. They are admitted at the same rate as the RD pool as a whole and they fill somewhere between 15-20% of the RD admits. </p>

<p>Now lets go back to your original post that I took issue with. The one where you were most rude to Northstarmom:</p>

<p>"the statement Harvard would not let anyone in EA unless it was certain that the person would get in RD is now beyond disingenuous, it is undeniably wrong."</p>

<p>This is your hypothesis.</p>

<p>Lets test it.</p>

<p>First, one has make the assumption that EA decisions are not random, that the applicants are in some way ranked and that the highest ranked applicants are the ones admitted EA. Thus all deferred EA applicants are ranked below the EA admits.</p>

<p>If your premise is correct in that there are EA admits who would not make the cut in the RD round, and the rankings mean anything, then it follows that few, if any of the deferred EAs (who are lower ranked than the supposedly undeserving EA admits) should get in. If this is not the case (and it is not), then you premise doesn't hold water (it doesn't). </p>

<p>Compare this with say ED at Dartmouth (my alma mater) when the deferred admits are a fraction of Harvard's. If your statement had been made about Dartmouth and ED, it would have been on target - but then again Dartmouth says as much itself.</p>

<p>I don't know where else to go with this. Your original post was both wrong and rude. Northstarmom deserves an apology.</p>

38

<p>80% of EA applicants get deferred -_-</p>

39

<p>I can only offer the evidence I cannot make you accept it. What you are calling heresay is the president of harvard admitting that EA gives an unfair advantage to early applicants and therefore it is being abandoned. This has to carry a little weight no?</p>

<p>I also gave you an extensive, full-blown study by two Harvard professors.</p>

<p>I also responded/anticipated your last test. Remember, Harvard still benefits from favoring EA even in the RD round. Moreover, there is a lot of uncertainty in the whole process. You cannot look at a few outcomes and decide whether or not a particular group is being favored. There will always be some outcomes that favor the hypothesis others that dont. You have to do what the study I cite does. take a large number of examples, control for observables and see if one group is being preferred on average given their test scores and other data.</p>

<p>It may well be and is probably the case that Harvard favors early applicants less than most ED schools such as Dartmouth and Princeton. But that is a separate point.</p>

40

<p>You made the following statement</p>

<p>"the statement Harvard would not let anyone in EA unless it was certain that the person would get in RD is now beyond disingenuous, it is undeniably wrong."</p>

<p>So far, you appear unable to either defend or support a position you present as "undeniable" using any available data. Truly, you seem unable to even engage in the discussion.</p>

<p>You don't understand the definitions of the words you use and you've not a clue about statistical analysis. </p>

<p>"Because so and so says so" doesn't cut it and just in case you haven't noticed, neither of the items you do cite make the claim you make in the your statement above.</p>

<p>"Undeniably false" is a rather high statistical standard to meet and you threw it out there without a second thought about a statement made by Harvard alumni interviewer. In essence, you called her a liar. And you did so with little or no real evidence to even question the validity of her statement never mind flat out refute it.</p>

<p>"the statement Harvard would not let anyone in EA unless it was certain that the person would get in RD is now beyond disingenuous, it is undeniably wrong."</p>

<p>Lets stick to this statement. Prove it, or retract it and apologize to Northstar mom.</p>